Patriot Act Necessary

The Patriot Act, an act passed by Congress in 2001 that addressed the topic of privacy in terrorist or radical situations, is controversial in today's society. Although it helps with protection against terroristic events, The Patriot Act is not fair, nor is it constitutional, because it allows the government to intrude on citizens' privacy, it gives governmental individuals too much power, and because the act is invasive to the 4th amendment right. To further describe key points in the act, it states that it allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking, and it allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred.

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 the United States became a very different place. This drastic change was caused by the initial emotional reactions that American citizens, as well as government leaders had towards the tragic event. The government, in an effort to assure that these events never happen again passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym that stands for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. The major goal of this act is to combat terrorism by giving the government more leeway in what areas they are allowed to use their surveillance tools and also to what circumstances these tools can be used. The major issue that arise with this act are the fact that many of the act can be seen as unconstitutional.

During many presidencies there have been many controversial decisions affecting civil liberties during times of national crisis. Throughout American history, the powers granted to the National Government and the President himself have been strengthened and expanded in wartime situations. Although they are sometimes controversial, the authority exerted on the nation through these powers have successfully protected the well-being of America and its national security. The passage of the USA Patriot Act under George W. Bush following terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and

In this essay I will discuss the pros and the cons of the Patriot Act, how it affected the lives of US citizens and the world, and whether or not it fits within our democratic form of government. The Patriot Act was a rapidly drafted and approved Act of Congress which was intended to increase the security of US citizens by combatting terrorism. Although granting increased security to an extent, the Act was and still is extremely controversial due to certain parts of the Act limiting the freedoms of American citizens. The Patriot Act enhanced the government’s ability to spy on their own people, and with far fewer restrictions, so many people were and still are disgusted, but many others completely agree with it. Millions of people, billions across the world have a historical trend of being happy to sacrifice their freedoms for increased security. The controversy lies with how more safe are you in comparison to how much of your freedom you have to give up, and that compromise is weighed vastly different for individuals across the world. Did the Patriot Act save enough lives to warrant what it cost, or did it inhibit the lives of too many people to be allowed to continue. The answer will always be disputed and weighing each side will be a very difficult task.

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 is a controversial public policy, which greatly undermines the civil liberties and constitutional freedom of the American people. This essay will moved from an overview of the USA Patriot Act to a review of the critical literature regarding the importance of the Act to the safety of Americans and shows how the Act violates the civil rights and liberties of citizens and noncitizens alike. After presenting sufficient evidence that the Patriot Act violates many of the basic principles that have been articulated in the U.S. Constitution, particularly within the Bill of Rights, I will, propose recommendations that if implemented scrupulously could help to restore American confidence in government's determination to

Most recently, the September 11th attacks and subsequent War on Terrorism have rekindled this great debate between national security and civil liberties. The argument for national security suggests that the state can minimize violence and threats to infrastructure by enabling police, intelligence services, and military personnel to do what is necessary to protect citizens from threats, both domestic and foreign. On the other hand, the civil liberties argument contends that agents of the state exert power over citizens in order to maintain the authority of the government itself. Proponents of this argument fear that increasing the government’s authority could threaten the rights of citizens and bring into question the principles upon which the

On the morning of September 11, 2001, an Islamic terrorist group known as al-Qaeda carried out a series of four attacks on the United States. The most well-known attack is when two commercial airline planes crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City. Many innocent lives were lost and families were torn apart. While many Americans were determined to show their resilience towards the attacks, this is a day many Americans will never forget. Although the attacks happened sixteen years ago, Americans are still dealing with the impacts these attacks have had on life in America. The 9/11 attacks have had several long-lasting effects on everyday life in America, some of which include an increase in airport security, a change in national security, and an increase the fear of terrorism.

The Bill of Rights is paramount to every single human being in the United States. It is the collection of every right a person has, and everyone should know their rights to protect themselves. The United States is slowly becoming less and less free, but not in a restrictive way, it is for the safety of its citizens. Terrorism became more apparent in our country after September 11th, and thus the Patriot Act was passed. This allowed the FBI to survey any suspected terrorist without legal permission (a warrant.) It is not restrictive; we are not limited to what we can do beyond reasonable measures. Today, at any given moment in a busy city, we are on camera from multiple different angles. Also, our emails

Section 215 of the patriot act states that the government can gain access to any citizens records from businesses like Verizon to retrieve information from their phone records, purchase history, and even financial information. I personally condone this act and I believe that is an advancement that is necessary for today's modern society. We keep on progressing technologically and becoming more dependent on technology for many things. With that said our protection and understanding of the use and misuse of technology needs to advance as well. Even though this act can be seen as an invasion of privacy to many people. I believe that without it the internet would not have enough restrictions to stop large amounts of crime from happening. It is

After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress,

In the years since the passing of the Patriot Act, there has been much controversy and debate regarding the positive and negative advantages, and consequences of this bill. As a member of the law enforcement community I have experienced firsthand some of the changes the Patriot Act has brought upon this nation. A result of this experience along with information obtained in the studying of this act and

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

Protection of privacy has been amongst the debates, for several years now. Many of the people believe that we should be allowed full privacy which essentially goes against the Patriot Act. There has been numerous issues with phone privacy, mostly because the government has the power to everything that has ever been within your phone and is collected and is charter down and completely looked over. This is sparking much controversy as many americans believe it goes against their rights and should overall be allowed privacy. What many blatantly ignore is the amount of protection the Patriot Act actually brings. Is the patriot act necessary or completely unnecessary? There are proven facts and data that shows that the patriot act is necessary and here's why.

The dreadful and terrifying events of September 11 necessitated and increased government 's responsibility to take effective measures for preserving lives of the people and ensuring independence of the society. In this context, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and President Bush pledged to respond within boundaries set by the Constitution confronting and preventing terrorist attacks. Through Patriot Act, the law enforcement agencies of the Untied States are given the most effective tools to combat terrorists having intentions or plans to attack the nation. It is, in fact, a significant weapon for nation 's fight against terror. Major purpose of the Patriot Act is to break wall of regulatory and legal polices existing between the law enforcement agencies and intelligence to share essential as well as related information.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the